However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Why are you so threatened by the prospect of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox church? As for open statements by cannonical Orthodox heads, I have read in the past that Pat Bartholomew has openly stated that if the UAOC and UOCKP were united that would be overcoming one of the major obstacles to obtaining canonical recognition. of course the Russian church would never accept that and as for the heads of other Orthodox churches, I have heard nor read anything on the topic one way or another.

I'm not talking about some Ukrainian gossips or RISU "news". I'm talking about statements by (canonical) Orthodox hierarchs.

So, news directly from the UAOC wouldn't be believed, until someone outside of the UAOC confirmed it? How's that work?

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Well, it does make sense that if the various Churches unite, they have a better chance of gaining canonicity.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 10:40:32 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

So Ialmisry, what makes a church canonical. My understanding is that it has to be accepted into the brotherhood of other churches. Nothing about the UOCKP or UAOC for that matter in terms of practices, rites, beliefs, or sacraments are uncanonical. it seems that the split from the Russian church without permission from the other orthodox churches is the canonical issue. So please tell me =, according to you what makes the Ukrainian church uncanonical.

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

One could argue, and I know you disagree, that the myriad schisms which tore through the Russian mission after the Revolution in America prevented mutual recognition of canonicity and concelebrations on a fairly regular basis (I am old enough to remember those days I remind you) until a period of relative stability was reached around the late 1960s. Now, I know that the recognition of the OCA's autocephaly is another matter but...

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

Well yeah, you criticize RISU yet you cite Moscow Patriarchate press? I would never trust anything that comes out out Russia regarding the Ukrainian church. Michal don't call me a liar. You just have your head up so far up your own Ukrainian hating ^*(&( that you are blind to the truth. With that I am done on this thread as Michal you are a waste of my time and I need to get back to work.

Why are you so threatened by the prospect of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox church? As for open statements by cannonical Orthodox heads, I have read in the past that Pat Bartholomew has openly stated that if the UAOC and UOCKP were united that would be overcoming one of the major obstacles to obtaining canonical recognition. of course the Russian church would never accept that and as for the heads of other Orthodox churches, I have heard nor read anything on the topic one way or another.

They, like the EP, will not go against the MoP. There was a dry run on Estonia. The results do not augur well for the "UOCKP"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

God grant it! Under a autocephalous Patriarch Volodymyr, or his successor.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

God grant it! Under a autocephalous Patriarch Volodymyr, or his successor.

Why do you advocate that the Ukrainian church only be a part of Moscow as Met Volodymyr's church is a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, in theory autonomous but in reality simply an extension of the ROC.

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

You mean acceptance by all?

Malformed autocephalies like the "Kiev Patriarchate" and the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Church" tend to die out, while those destined to succeed begin with at least unofficial support, and end up with universal official support and recognition. I can't think of a single exception.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

However I can tell you the the UAOC as the 3rd largest Orthodox jurisdiction (behind the UOCKP and UOCMP) is concentrated mainly in western Ukraine and that the Lviv Eparchy is the largest in terms of churches, clergy, and followers. The uniting of the two jurisdictions (UAOC and UOCKP) has been cited as one of the main tasks to receive cannonical recognition from the rest of the non-Moscow Orthodox cannonical world.

heaping schisms on top of one another never makes a critical mass for canonicity. Never has. Never will.

God grant it! Under a autocephalous Patriarch Volodymyr, or his successor.

Why do you advocate that the Ukrainian church only be a part of Moscow

You should brush up on your definitions.

Quote

Autocephaly (literally "self-headed") is the status of a church within the Orthodox Church whose primatial bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly.

as Met Volodymyr's church is a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, in theory autonomous but in reality simply an extension of the ROC.

The Sacred Canons.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So Ialmisry, what makes a church canonical. My understanding is that it has to be accepted into the brotherhood of other churches. Nothing about the UOCKP or UAOC for that matter in terms of practices, rites, beliefs, or sacraments are uncanonical.

it seems that the split from the Russian church without permission from the other orthodox churches is the canonical issue. So please tell me =, according to you what makes the Ukrainian church uncanonical.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church isn't uncanonical.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Frankly those of us who are not Ukrainian ought to allow the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and her people to work their problems out with canonical Orthodoxy. How the heck can we from the USA argue against Ukrainian autocephaly with a straight face while pining for our own unified autocephaly and being free from foreign domination? This whole national church and territory problem continues to plague Orthodoxy and weaken her to her adversaries. Ukrainians are not Russians. Why do you think the UGCC is so steadfastly "in your face" and a thorn in Moscow's side?

No one in this thread has argued against the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

It's indifferent for me. I wouldn't mind autocephalous Ukrainian Church. I don't mind present situation of her. All I am concerned is that I think both sides should not use false or imagined arguments in discussion.

Frankly those of us who are not Ukrainian ought to allow the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and her people to work their problems out with canonical Orthodoxy. How the heck can we from the USA argue against Ukrainian autocephaly with a straight face while pining for our own unified autocephaly and being free from foreign domination? This whole national church and territory problem continues to plague Orthodoxy and weaken her to her adversaries. Ukrainians are not Russians. Why do you think the UGCC is so steadfastly "in your face" and a thorn in Moscow's side?

Because some things never change-the Supreme Pontiff of Florence sent Isidore the Apostate to Moscow, not Kiev. And who set up the hierarchy of the "Russian Catholic Church" as soon as the Czar fell? Met. Sheptytsky, founder of the UGCC as we know it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

We are so stuck on models that were developed for reasons of state that we cannot see a simple solution. Let's look past the Roman, Ottoman, Russian Empire models, as well as the nation/state models that came about in the 19th Century. Let's look back to the Holy Scriptures and to the Apostolic Church instead. What we have is the Great Commission that tells us to bring into Christ's Body all nations, as well as city-churches that were ontologically complete (Ruling bishop surrounded by his priests, deacons and laity). You go forward in time a bit and in the Apostolic Canon 34 we see the principle of how to get organized beyond the city-church level (today's equivalent being a diocese). You have a Metropolitan or senior bishop, a primate (first among equals) whose job is to make sure that unanimity of the ruling bishops is required to change anything affecting all dioceses.

Applying this concept to the Ukraine, you could have two local churches, one composed of the dioceses that want to be part of an autocephalous church and another one composed of dioceses that want to be part of the ROC (Krasnodar comes to mind). You could even have a national coordinating body composed of members of the Holy Synod of the presumably autocephalous Ukrainian Church and of the presumably autonomous Ukrainian Church-ROC. Since the basic governing principle is unanimity, it would not make a difference who chairs this coordinating body--they could take turns. Of course, this approach would not work at all if the respective churches see themselves as primarily Russians or Ukrainians, or if they become entangled with the respective states. Nonetheless, this is the only approach consistent with the Great Commission.

Cant they just all come together and become one autocephalous Church? Moscow could maintain Patriarchal Parishes in Ukraine, just as they do in the U, S and A. Met. Agafangel of Odesa could become Patriarchal Administrator.

Anyway, I do think if UAOC and UOC-KP come together, there would be one schism less and a stronger negociation position for autocephaly.

Instead of complaining about it, those who "care" about the souls of Ukrainians ought to pray that it is true, that it will be successful and that only good will come of it.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 07:33:59 PM by LizaSymonenko »

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

I hope it leads to good. I just don't know whether is good or bad, so given the choice I will hope and pray it is for the good.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

God grant it! Under a autocephalous Patriarch Volodymyr, or his successor.

This is what Google translate is giving me. Anyone want to make sense of this for me?

Quote

In єdnostі force people God we Yednist filed.

In unity there is strength, God give us unity

Please keep in mind that it is a rule of this Forum that anyone posting in foreign languages MUST follow it up with a translation in English, either personally translated or via an online translation such as Google Translate. Please make sure to do this in the future

It is never good to sit back and look at churches that share the same faith be separate over nationalistic differences. Whenever there are two churches that share the same faith, all efforts must be towards unification, no matter the history or canonical tradition. Oneness of faith trumps all. Think of how the Church fathers worked hard in healing the Meletian schism. This is the example we should follow.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

It is never good to sit back and look at churches that share the same faith be separate over nationalistic differences.

There are no nationalistic differences between the UAOC and KP. Just money and some personal issues.

I just don't understand why is it necessary for heirarchs to claim patriarchal superiority over a diocese. If that diocese wants its own patriarchate, so be it. I think there needs to be humility more than anything else. There was never a "patriarchate" system in the pre-imperial Church. The Ignatian ecclesiology dictates where there's a bishop, there's the Catholic Church. Otherwise, we're creating "mini-papisms" that cause endless strife for no reason.

Truly sad.

I speak also on account of what I've seen happen in the OO Churches as well.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 05:30:32 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The Mother Church of Ukraine is Constantinople. I do not see why autocephaly should come from Moscow. In practice however, if Constantinople were to grant autocephaly to Ukraine, that would not be recognised by Moscow, and maybe some other local churches such as Serbia.

I guess, we could expect an Estonian / Moldovan situation during the next years, rather than autocephaly...

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

While that is true, was not Ukraine part of the Moscow Patriarchate when Constantinople recognized her autocephaly?

No. Actually most of what is now Ukraine, including Kyiv, belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth back then.

No, recognition by the EP of Moscow's autocephaly and elevation as a patriarchate was done in exchange with Moscow's recognition of the transfer of jurisdiction over the Commonwealth back to Constantinople.

Met. St. Jonas, the first autocephalous Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', consecrated in Moscow, was recognized by the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania as primate of the Orthodox in their domain in 1451, the bishops and Orthodox (including the Lithuanian Orthodox prince of Kiev) having recognized him before.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I guess, we could expect an Estonian / Moldovan situation during the next years, rather than autocephaly...

Moscow will do more than strike the EP from the diptychs.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

While that is true, was not Ukraine part of the Moscow Patriarchate when Constantinople recognized her autocephaly?

No. Actually most of what is now Ukraine, including Kyiv, belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth back then.

I have a feeling that I am about to say something foolish in the eyes of many (perhaps rightfully so). Are you implying that when Costantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 16th Century, there was an entity in Ukraine under Constantinople? Please correct then the following narrative from Wikipedia:

"The Kievan church was originally a Metropolitanate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Byzantine patriarch appointed the metropolitan who governed the Church of Rus'. The Metropolitan's residence was originally located in Kiev. As Kiev was losing its political, cultural, and economical significance due to the Mongol invasion, Metropolitan Maximus moved to Vladimir in 1299; his successor, Metropolitan Peter moved the residence to Moscow in 1325....In 1448, the Patriarchate of Moscow (the Russian Church) became independent from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Jonas, installed by the Council of Russian bishops in 1448, was given the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia. This was just five years before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. From this point onward the Russian Orthodox Church saw Moscow as the Third Rome, legitimate successor to Constantinople, and the Primate of Moscow as head of the Russian Orthodox Church....During the reign of Tsar Fyodor I his brother-in-law Boris Godunov contacted the Ecumenical Patriarch, who "was much embarrassed for want of funds,"[14] with a view to establishing a patriarchal see in Moscow. As a result of Godunov's efforts, Metropolitan Job of Moscow became in 1589 the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', making the Russian Church autocephalous."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#History